Originally posted by noyhauser
Aggragately yes they do have similar land densities, but if you look closer the actual area that is fit for development there is probably less that 20% of the land availble in Japan than what is available in England. England is a fairly flat country, while Japan is mountainous and craggy, leaving very little area for development. The Japanese are world leaders in land reclaimation, and still they have massive problems finding land. Look how difficult it is to build an airport around Osaka...


Land reclamation is only good for cities build on the coast that have already extended too far, like Tokyo and Osaka. I did look carefully, and whether it's true that Japan has less livable space than England, most of the Japanese countryside is emptying itslef, with prefectural government in places like Shimane, Yamaguchi, Yamagata or Aomori trying desperately to refrain young people from living, and some even offering land for free to those who accept to settle there for more than 5 or 10 years (forgot exactly how long). Hokkaido has the same size, population (5m) than Scotland and a very similar geography. Actually Hokkaido is flatter and most of the land is very sparsely populated. Half of the people lives in the 3 main cities : Sapporo (1,8million), Hakodate (300.000) and Otaru (165.000).

Furthermore I would even contest that Japanese lack of insulation is mostly due to the enviromental conditions in Japan as well has historical house design, where the country is unbearably hot in the summer, and therefore insulation was less desirable.
Historically, no country has insulation such as "glass fiber". That's a modern invention. As it also keeps the heat outside in summer, it is desirable in Japan. Japanese houses that are not made of wood are always made of concrete, which absorbs the humid air and keep it inside in summer, making it unbearable to live. When I was in Europe, there was never a need for air conditioning even when it was 35 degree celsius, because of insulation or deeper walls that naturally keep the inside cool.

Your contention about higher costs for travel only applies to interprefectural travel, which is far more rare than normal travel. With less vacation time people don't travel away very often anyway.
Indeed I was talking about long-distance travel. Travelling in and around Tokyo using public transport is not more expensive than in London or Paris. Contrarily to what you think, Japanese people move a lot inside their country, be it for business trips, weekends at a hot spring, or all the Tokyoite who go skiing in Nagano, Niigata, Gunma or Fukushima prefectures. Or just going back to their home town visiting relatives at obon and new year at least (and most people in Tokyo are not originally from Tokyo).


Uhh no. And what corrolation do you provide? can you find a statstical link between increasing empoyment of women and overall increase in unemployment? Your statement might be correct if women were replacing male workers, but that is not even close to the case.
Justly because married women still mainly stay at home and don't seek to take the men's jobs. Even if they work, it's mostly "arubaito" (part-time) and keeping it under 1million yen/year to enjoy tax exemption.

Wow thats a piece of data manipulation if I have ever seen one. Its worth noting that Tokyo Osaka and Nagoya account for over 50% of Japan's population. Also I question these numbers since the Japanese per capita GDP is 28,000 yen.Japan has a fairly low Gini Coefficient meaning its distribution of wealth is fairly equal.
Here are my sources : http://www.demographia.com/db-intlppp-regiona.htm

It is normal that salaries are that high in Tokyo, as it includes all the biggest companies's Headquarters. Same thing happen with London and the UK, Paris and France, or Brussels and Belgium. All are very centralised countries.

Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya never account for 50% of Japan's population. These stats are by prefecture, so Tokyo doesn't include Saitama, Chiba and Kanagawa (Yokohama), but just the 11,8 million people of Tokyo-to. The prefectures of Osaka only has 8,8m and Aichi (Nagoya) 7m. Total = 26,5m, ie 20% of Japan's pop.


Its is comparable to Scandanavian countries (J-24.7 Sweden-25.5, US- 40) that is counterintuitive to what you are saying.
I don't see your point here. Scandinavian countries have very different GDP/capita. The world bank's data for 2002 show that Norway's GNI/capita was 37,850$, above the US (35060$), and well above Denmark (30290$) and especially Sweden (24800$). You can hardly associate the 3 of them.


Economic protectionism, which worked well in a whole host of other Asian countries including south korea to increase their wealth. The difference is that the Japanese are now a economic powerhouse in East Asia, accounting for 70% of the Region's GDP and 18% of the Worlds GDP... I don't know how you can explain away that but Japan is a economic superpower. And your assertion that it only did well because of economic protectionism does not do Japan's current status justice. Japan's economic position has completely changed. It is now an service sector economy, which exports knowlege and investment rather than industrial goods. It is the main investor in China.
So how comes that when you have a look at the GDP vs GNP (here ), Japan is one of the rare countries (along with Switzerland, Kuwait or Brazil) to have a higher GNP, because Japanese companies worldwide make more money than all companies in Japan. Other countries usually have a higher GDP because of foreign companies. But there are so few in Japan that even the big American Securities companies or giants like McDonald, IBM, Intel or Pfizer don't counter-balance Japanese investments abroad.